One of the most telling political moments during CNN’s Republican debate last night came toward the end, when host John King and three out of four candidates — Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — had a brief chat about a topic near and dear to GOP hearts, abortion rights. Then, after a few minutes of the typical “I love life most” rhetoric, King then tried to change the subject, either intentionally or accidentally glossing over Ron Paul. Well, the crowd was not having it. They began yelling the Texas congressman’s name, forcing King to turn attention back to abortion, an area on which Paul says his medical experience makes him an expert.
“It’s a medical subject and I’m a doctor!” he said, to laughs. “I do want to make a couple of comments because I can remember the very early years studying obstetrics and I was told — and it was before the age of abortion. And I was told taking care of a woman that’s pregnant, you have two patients. And I think that’s — that solves a lot of the problems of life — you know, when life begins and all.”
Alright, fair enough: that’s what doctors were told back when Paul began his medical career in 1961. That was also an era when almost everyone and their mom smoked cigarettes, ate copious amounts of red meat and unabashedly drove drunk. It was a different era, obviously before “Roe v. Wade.”
After pausing for applause, Paul went on to draw a misleading, moralistic conclusion about abortion’s rise in acceptance during that period:
I also experienced a time later on in my training, in the 1960s when the culture was changing. The Vietnam War was going on. The drugs were there and pornography and everything came in. And abortion became prevalent, even though it was illegal. So the morality of the country changed, but then the law followed up. When the morality changed, it will — reflects on the laws.
Ah, so drugs and pornography that are responsible for unwanted pregnancies. Women who get abortions are either sex workers or drug addicts, not single, rape victims, lower-class, “guilty” of a simple mistake or anything like that. They were just deviants, right? That makes sense. To Paul and his peers, at least.
Paul also used his time to argue that loose morals changed the legal system, spawning laws that allow hospitals receiving government money to fund abortion. “This is an indictment of government-run medicine because you never can sort that all out. You need the government out of that business or you will always argue over who’s paying what bills,” he said.
Santorum jumped in here to reiterate he believes “Roe v. Wade” should be overturned all together and that there need to be federal restrictions in place, presenting Paul an opportunity to synthesize his states’ rights philosophy with the trusted social conservatism so deeply bred into the abortion battle: abortion is a “violent act,” just like murder and burglary, actual, real life crimes regulated on a state level, and should be legislated as such.
I see abortion as a violent act. All other violence is handled by the states — murder, burglary, violence. That’s a state issue.
So don’t try to say that I’m less pro-life because I want to be particular about the way we do it and allow the states the prerogative. This is the solution. This is the solution. Because if we would allow the states to write their laws, take away the jurisdiction by a majority vote in the Congress, you repeal Roe versus Wade overnight, instead of waiting year after year to change the court system.
Paul found himself an anti-abortion darling at another event this week, the group Personhood USA’s gathering in Greenville, South Carolina. All the candidates — including then-contender Rick Perry — came together Wednesday to chat about how to further restrict abortion in the United States. One would have expected Santorum, recently backed by Evangelical leaders, to be the biggest draw there. It was, after all, social conservatives like the former senator who grew abortion over the years from a simple medical procedure to a reliable, tenacious and seemingly intractable wedge issue, so it makes sense that the crowd would lavish a peer in praise. Not so.
As the Daily Beast reports, Ron Paul supporters overpowered Santorum by chanting their candidate’s name during his speech, making Paul the meeting’s big winner — or at least the most lauded.
Paul’s popularity in the anti-abortion arena can be pinned on two things. First, the most obvious, is his past as a doctor. He didn’t run those commercials for nothing. His work as an OB-GYN gives him street cred among the pro-life set, and he’s using it well. The second reason seems like less of a perfect fit, but actually is: Paul’s Libertarian leanings — and I’m not just talking about states’ rights, the prevailing theoretical force in the Republican Party today.
America’s youth are the primary force behind Paul’s campaign. They turn out for him more than any other candidate, largely because they agree with his Libertarian politics. But the abortion issue to them may not be about big, bad government, but about the same exact things that motivate social conservatives — religion.
Surprisingly, almost the same percentage of younger Millenial Americans and older Americans thinks abortion should be legal: 60% and 56%, respectively. “They are no more likely than the general public to say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases,” the Public Religion Research Institute found last year. And the same is true when morality is brought into play.
Fifty percent of Millenials think abortions are morally wrong, a mere 7 points less than the general public. While younger Americans are becoming more accepting of marriage equality, they’re just as conservative as past generations when it comes to abortion, which may explain why Paul, a superstar among more youthful voters, appears to be favored among pro-lifers. That likely won’t be enough to win him the election, of course, but it’s another indication of how the Libertarian congressman from Texas helped catalyze the GOP’s ongoing evolution. No longer are social conservatives calling all the shots; there are new political philosophies afoot in the GOP, philosophies sparked largely by Paul and the Tea Party he helped spawn. Sadly for abortion rights activists, among others, these new ideas are remarkably similar to the old ones.
Here’s video of Ron Paul’s abortion response from last night’s CNN Republican debate:
January 20, 2012 at 9:12 am, Steven Elliott said:
Ugh first of all you didn’t even mention us what his policy would be: Let the states decide the legality of abortion, just like how states handle other violent acts, like murder (there is no federal ban on murder). Second of all your statement “Ah, so drugs and pornography that are responsible for unwanted pregnancies” is nowhere near what Paul implied. But you are probably a liberal-arts degree idiot who doesn’t understand critical thinking or how logic works. Maybe you should get a mathematics degree like myself and actually learn a thing or two.
January 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm, Crayton said:
Steven Elliot is correct. Paul was not implying that pornography and drugs caused a rise in abortion. Paul was pointing to the fact that all 3 showed a marked change in American morality (I won’t say “decline” because one man’s trash is another man’s treasure).
Thus Paul’s point is that the morality of Americans will influence whether government (state or federal) changes its position on abortion. And if you allow the morality of South Carolingians to guide laws in their state then, presumably, you would appeal Roe-v-Wade overnight in that state.
January 21, 2012 at 10:17 am, Cate said:
Good to note that we have such a superior intellect in our midst. I agree that the logic in this article is sadly flawed, but this kind of arrogance doesn’t help either.
January 20, 2012 at 9:17 am, Rocknrollsage said:
Sorry, but I can’t let you get away with this hack journalism. Paul wasn’t implying that drugs and porn “caused” pregnancies, he was using them as examples to cite America’s shifting morality–its right there IN THE VERY QUOTE YOU USE–he is simply saying that when morals change, so do the laws.
To take that comment and suggest he’s saying people got pregnant “because of” drugs and porn, you’re either an idiot or… well, I can’t think of a way to finish that sentence.
Christ.
January 20, 2012 at 10:03 am, Anonymous said:
Also, he’s pretty much saying it’s a morality issue. While it’s a violent act, which he doesn’t condone–at least later in the pregnancy–he’s pretty realistic about it all. Anyone who’s going to go through with one is probably in a desperate situation and would consider an abortion even if it were illegal. If you really want to reduce abortions, we need to create a more prosperous society and get at the heart of the problem: the Fed stealing Americans’ wealth by printing money out of thin air. Am I right!
January 20, 2012 at 10:22 am, Rocknrollsage said:
I agree in general terms, but you kind of came out of left field with the Fed stuff: I’m inclined to doubt a correlation between monetary policy and abortion rates. That said, I agree with Paul regarding the Fed, but I always squirm a bit because it’s almost impossible to discuss the problem to a large audience without simplifying to a potentially damaging degree.
January 20, 2012 at 10:29 am, Anonymous said:
ha. His answers usually end there or on the wars. I was just kidding.
January 20, 2012 at 10:39 am, Rocknrollsage said:
heh, I figured you were taking a bit of a piss but I wasn’t sure lol.. makes sense though
January 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm, Faux1975 said:
The abortion issue and why it’s an issue at all is crystal clear yet so many people seem to be missing the point. When the women’s rights movement gained momentum, so did the pro-choice movement. Abortion is simply a direct result of Women’s rights. That’s all. The problem with that argument for the pro choice women is that the government was never in their way of their rights. Some women fail to realize that pregnancy is a CHOICE. One they decide if they do the deed. The pro choice laws in this Country are so backwards and double standard-ish, I’m amazed it’s taken this long to get rid of ROE vs WADE. Again, this has always been about women’s rights, that is all yet fail to realize that God created them with the ability to pro-create BY CHOICE, yet the pro-choice crowd actually go againsted that notion by aborting because of Women’s rights and selfishness. Blame the women’s rights movement for Roe vs Wade!!
January 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm, Gross. said:
oh my god please tell me you are being ironic.
January 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm, Gross. said:
oh my god please tell me you are being ironic.
January 20, 2012 at 6:34 pm, Anonymous said:
Pregnancy from rape is a choice?
January 21, 2012 at 1:57 am, pro baby said:
Why kill a baby when they can do adoption???
January 21, 2012 at 2:00 am, 101ime said:
I was raped and have a child from it hes 5 hes out there with a family who loves him but it was not mine or his fault why should i end his life cause that ass whole raped me!!!!!
January 23, 2012 at 11:45 am, Anonymous said:
I was stalked for 9 months by a mentally ill man who obsessed with marrying me. His last effort to try to force marriage was to rape me. Although pregnancy from rape is rare, I did get pregnant. Why put a child to death that is innocent? As traumatic as the rape was, the experience of carrying a child was so incredibly beautiful and cannot even be described. The pregnancy went fast, and was nothing to fear. It was helpful in my healing to have some good come from the rape. Wanting what was best for her, I placed my daughter for adoption. I didn’t think of it at the time, but I made a generational decision! Not only do I have an amazing daughter that looks like me, I have grandchildren too! For whatever reason, she was the only child I conceived. She is a gift to me, to her parents, and to so many. My favorite movie is, “Its A Wonderful Life,” a good illustration of the tragedy we all suffer when someone is not allowed to be born. Every child deserves a birthday, their right to life.
January 21, 2012 at 11:01 am, steve said:
its actually the abortion that creates wealth, indeed excessive fiat money is just like an unsustainable population boom, they re both ponzi schemes
January 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm, Crayton said:
I think it is the responsibility of churches and analogous social groups to educate Americans on the alternatives to abortion and ferment a changing morality that way. Simply re-writing a law won’t erase our society’s dependence upon abortion, though arguably the number of abortions would see a dip.
January 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm, Daren Ferreira said:
Thank you Rocknrollsage.. I was going to say the same thing..Once this article started injecting “Opinion” into it I had to stop reading.. Obviously the writer doesn’t like Dr. Paul and is scared of him.. Therefore he tries to discredit him with lies..
January 20, 2012 at 9:19 am, Anonymous said:
Typical shoddy journalism at it’s finest.
January 20, 2012 at 10:05 am, Anonymous said:
*at its worst.
January 20, 2012 at 9:24 am, Spazmodo said:
Ahh another Liberal news pundit spouts his opinions which count for less than the turd on the bottom of my shoe. Learn something about the Constitution then we can talk again. This is a states rights issue and should not be a Federal law.
January 20, 2012 at 9:28 am, Mbar said:
I heard it as a circumstantial argument of the different times. One could see it as an argument of correlation, with a little stretch. You, however, skip straight to accusing him of making a causal argument. Please provide where he said that x causes y before you go on a tirade of why it doesn’t.
January 20, 2012 at 9:30 am, Jami C. said:
This article represents the worst critical thinking skills I’ve seen in months.
January 20, 2012 at 9:31 am, Bo Li said:
I’m pro choice… but I find nothing wrong with Ron Paul’s hands off state approach. Each state would be able to better regulate what is permitted and what is not based on their own social and economical condition and micromanagement. To expect the Federal Government who is even further from each incident and with even less understanding to be able to make sweeping choices for states with differing economies and social backgrounds is absurd.
January 20, 2012 at 12:39 pm, James said:
Exactly!
January 20, 2012 at 3:58 pm, Jake said:
A woman’s right to choose is a basic human right, in any jurisdiction.
January 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm, Faux1975 said:
and a right to live is a basic human right and for all that cannot speak for themselves. The unborn. A woman’s right to choose begins and ends when they do the deed. That is their choice. They must except the consequence to their actions if they indeed don’t want that child. The moral alternative is adoption or abstinence! Women cannot have their cake and eat it too. BTW, aborting is nothing more than a slap in the face to their own ability to procreate. Here is a novel idea. Make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions on the state level. How is that imposing on a woman’s right? Is the government forcing them to sleep around and get pregnant? NO!!!
January 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm, Faux1975 said:
A woman getting an abortion is no different than assisted suicide yet one is a crime. Double standard? I think so.
January 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm, Faux1975 said:
A woman chooses to get in her car and drive to the abortion clinic to abort that child. On her way, she get hit by a drunk driver and is killed. Guess how that drunk driver will be charged. Double standard? I think so……
January 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm, Faux1975 said:
Want to create a level of birth control that requires no pill or abortion? Make abortion medically illegal. We can’t cater to the .01% of women who get pregnant through rape. That’s like catering to the anti gun people and banning guns because a very small % of people kill others with guns. It’s common sense people. My wife would agree 100%. This isn’t about Religion, it’s about life. Life is more important than choice when you compare the 2 subjects. Is it not?
January 21, 2012 at 9:57 am, Karin said:
Problem here is: Obviously MEN DO get to sleep around, get other people pregnant and then take no responsibility whatsoever. Not morally, not financially, not physically. Until the “burden” of raising these unintended children, the problem will remain. I’ve fostered some of these children. It’s sad what they become.
January 20, 2012 at 9:36 am, Anonymous said:
Poorly written/poorly conceived article.
January 20, 2012 at 9:36 am, Anonymous said:
Oh, the left wing “pro-rights” catchcry. -Yawn
I forgot where I was for a second.
For the record, it doesn’t matter that Paul doesn’t belive in killing babies, because he wants it handled by the states anyway. Totally consistent with his aversion to federal tyranny.
January 20, 2012 at 9:39 am, LB Shelton said:
I’m sorry but this is the poorest excuse for journalism I’ve seen in a long time. Paul never said anything about sex workers or drug adicts being the only ones looking for an abortion. He’s making the point that, when peoples morality shifted to a place where they didn’t see abortion as morally problematic, they found a way to have an abortion, no matter what the law said.
January 20, 2012 at 9:40 am, Anonymous said:
Dude, just try to tell the truth. If you have a legitimate point, you should be able to make it without all these twists and turns and falshoods.
Just be honest, because you will convince more people that way.
This article was just very, very poorly reasoned. The writing was kinda ok, but your logic… sorry, the logic was just nutty.
January 20, 2012 at 9:42 am, Scott McDevitt said:
fire the idiot that wrote this hack piece immediatly please… my god what an idiot…IN THE VERY QUOTE HE IS SAYING THAT WHEN MORALS CHANGE SO DO THE LAWS! You are such an idiot Andrew…and thank your lucky starts your mom didn’t abort the monster of a son she had.
January 21, 2012 at 10:21 am, Cate said:
Calling someone you disagree with a “monster” is despicable.
January 20, 2012 at 9:46 am, Du said:
This article is trash .
January 20, 2012 at 9:47 am, Digitaldave said:
Talk about twisting an argument to satisfy your position Mr Andrew Belonsky , this article is about as informative as most all who just don’t get it about Dr. Paul. Drinking and drugging is wrong while pregnant yes, but to compare this to murdering is just plain stupid.
January 20, 2012 at 9:49 am, DuStin said:
Logic EPIC FAIL
January 20, 2012 at 9:53 am, Josh said:
the more the MSM Lies the more support Ron paul gets (keep up the good work)
January 20, 2012 at 9:55 am, Anonymous said:
The name of your mag suggests you support every other candidate except Dr. Paul and this article confirms it.
January 20, 2012 at 9:55 am, Jeff Cosgrove said:
Andrew Belonsky is a putz. However, he is a higher evolution. Just ask him. babies in bellies. Nope, that’s bad info. Abortion is selfish, murderous, and nothing Andrew can’t throw up with his smoke screen, pious, leftie-speak can change that. Sorry Andrew.
We’re not talking about a woman’s right to donate her kidney, liver or other internal organ. This is not about removing your appendix. This is about removing another person from her womb, ripping their spine from their skull, and leaving them to die, if they were not instantly killed. This has been a coverup from the abortion industry for a long time. Unfortunately, even those who submitted to the abortion are losers in this one. No one wins.
January 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm, Jake said:
I take it you donate regularly and generously to the poor, and are in favour of social assistance in the form of paying the rent, food, health care, and education costs for those who need it. I take it you have never tried to convince a woman who didn’t want to have sex with you to change her mind.
January 21, 2012 at 10:25 am, Cate said:
Abortion industry? Really?
January 20, 2012 at 9:56 am, Bill O Really? said:
I was about to weigh in on this out of a sense of obligation to refute such poor logic and journalism, but after reading the comments I see there is no need.
January 20, 2012 at 10:28 am, Anonymous said:
Bill O Really, haha love the moniker. Do you have any for all the other major media who es?
January 20, 2012 at 9:56 am, Anonymous said:
My comments are on the topic, journalism quality aside. Ron Paul has been consistent on this issue. Many people don’t know that ”Ron Paul wrote a book in 1983 entitled Abortion and Liberty where he discusses the ramifications of the heinous act of the murder of innocents. Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop wrote the forward where he praises Paul’s thoughtful position
on this issue and its impact on the natural rights of men.”
Ron Paul’s consistency on issues flies in the face of the hypocricy of the other candidates. His stance is to return the abortion issue back to the States because he believes it is a States issue and not Federal. Thus, in one swoop, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. Pretty clever, eh?
But, Santorum who criticized Ron Paul for not voting at the Federal level on an issue, voted against “Right to Work” because it went against what his State did. This is where a shining light shows the difference between Ron Paul and Santorum. Ron Paul votes his convictions consistently, Santorum would vote against his convictions because as he said “I was representing my State…” And, what if Pennsylvania was for abortion, or for gun control, I wonder what would Santorum have voted?
BTW, I live in Texas and know someone who was delivered by Ron Paul when he was a doctor. Pretty cool to think that an ex-doctor and possible next President brought life into the world instead of taking it away.
Ron Paul is very Pro-Life, which is why he is also against unjust and unconstitutional wars, though that is another topic, but on the point of how much this man cherishes life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness)!
Ron Paul 2012. The only honest and sane candidate there is.
January 20, 2012 at 9:56 am, Ol' Boy said:
Whoever wrote this article is ignorant. Wow!
January 20, 2012 at 9:58 am, Asher Jonas said:
AHAHAHHA—horrible journalism—it is quite humorous to see how easily it is to get payed in America..
January 21, 2012 at 10:23 am, Cate said:
Yeah, that’s it: how easily it is…..
January 20, 2012 at 10:00 am, Reggie said:
Paul is stating that drugs, pornography, and abortion were all symptoms of a shift in the morality of Americans. He is not even remotely suggesting that abortion is a bi-product of drugs and pornography. Your blanket claim that Ron Paul supporters believe that “Women who get abortions are either sex workers or drug addicts, not
single, rape victims, lower-class, “guilty” of a simple mistake or
anything like that,” is simply laughable, and it is a pathetic and illogical attack on Paul and his supporters.
January 20, 2012 at 10:04 am, Anonymous said:
What a lovely, condescending and morally superior tone. I bet you hate it when the Christian right talks that way. I see no difference between you.
January 20, 2012 at 10:04 am, GJ said:
Andrew, What a crummy article you’ve created.
Listen to Paul’s words again without your bias.
January 20, 2012 at 10:07 am, Anonymous said:
I am wondering where these reporters get their education? So it was a different era that OB doctors were taught that they treated two patients? Gee, so in this era, are they taught they are treating just one or maybe it is three? Yea I get it.
Next he states that every pregnant mother in the 50′s and 60′s was smoking, driving drunk, and eating red meat. With incredible nerve, then he suggests it is Dr. Paul that is demeaning the female sex with idiotic ideas.
Shame on you Mr. Belonsky.
January 20, 2012 at 10:10 am, Anonymous said:
Oh yes another correct. Working as a reporter gives one street cred. Being and working as a doctor gives one professional knowledge and expertise.
January 20, 2012 at 10:13 am, International said:
I’m a liberal and even this is too far reaching. This is a very poorly written article.
January 20, 2012 at 10:15 am, Anonymous said:
Geeez, I’m too tired to break down all that’s wrong with this drivel, but I will say the author needs to take a class in logic or critical thinking or maybe just stop taking stupid pills.
January 20, 2012 at 10:16 am, Anonymous said:
To call this journalism is an insult to journalists.
Please consider taking a Community College course on logic, critical thinking or landscape design.
January 20, 2012 at 10:16 am, Insane said:
Are you brain dead to write an article like this?
January 20, 2012 at 10:19 am, p t said:
C’mon Belonsky, Reference to Vietnam war+plus drugs+plus pornography isn’t the same as sex workers or drug addicts (which have been around for ages) aborting their children – it’s change in morality throughout the wide angle of the society that Ron Paul was talking about. It’s loosening the link between human’s behavior and responsibility for it – he was referring to. Rape is not the problem when it comes to abortion, it’s the philosophy to ‘abort at will’ that is.
And I don’t know what ‘guilty of simple mistake’ means? Do you exercise relativistic or just free-sampling approach? Should we forgo the acts of murderers because every murder is simply a ‘mistake’?, how about rape/burglary/robbery/theft/bulling? Or maybe should we classify murder only as a violent act on someone who is older that 9 months, because such classification it’s easier to swallow? After all it’s hard to get labeled a murderer for life, so there is an incentive among some to change the morality and the law.
Ron Paul is talking about freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility-he says. It’s a bit different approach to freedom that was promoted by the hippie philosophy that enjoyed explosion as a response to Vietnam war. His approach is individualistic- you choose-you pay, their was tribal- we choose-we (or others) pay. You want free sex? that’s fine, just bear responsibility. You want to play philanthropist or redistributor of wealth? that’s fine but do it with your own money. Do you want to strike rich? Go ahead, but don’t expect others to bail you out when you fail, because that alone will force others to be responsible for your mistakes.
January 20, 2012 at 10:37 am, Lauren O'Rourke said:
So, I take it you don’t like Ron Paul. Nice try, but you can’t change the voter’s minds. Once you go Paul, you never go back. Most people have already made up their minds who they are going to vote for anyway…even if they say they haven’t. The media might as well stop writing these stories….unless you are just trying to anger Paul supporters to come and comment so you will get more hits to your sites. From now on, I urge Paul supporters to try and view only the positive stories.
January 21, 2012 at 10:02 am, Cate said:
makes it easier to keep believing the same things, doesn’t it. All that pesky questioning….
January 20, 2012 at 10:38 am, Anonymous said:
I couldn’t find one nice thing about this article in the comments. I think this article was just bait for Paul supporters and we’re all suckers. Good one, Belonsky! Joke’s on us! And I thought you were an idiot.
January 20, 2012 at 10:45 am, Casbahqueen said:
I watched the debate, and then again viewed the video above to see if I missed something. Nope, I didn’t. Belonsky just has no idea what he’s talking about.
January 20, 2012 at 10:47 am, Dan S said:
Paul is for freedom of choice when he says to shift the issue to the states, but personally is anti-abortion. I think this ranks up there with gay marriage. If it doesn’t effect you, don’t worry about it. Who are any of you to judge the next person? It is not your position to create another person’s moral high ground. The U.S. has many more important issues to address rather then to go against our constitution that is based upon individual personal liberties. We need to get the holy rollers out of politics so we can worry about the crushing debt and runaway inflation and mass unemployment and crony capitalism. I am anti-abortion but I’m also a male that will never face this difficult decision. The comment in this article that a woman needs this right, among other things, because she is single, low income, or guilty of a simple mistake is ignorance at it’s best. It is scum like them that create this issue. Abortion is not a contraceptive, it is a last resort.
The 60′s were absolutely the turning point in which the moral fabric of the U.S. took a grave turn. I think his statement about the tree hugging hippies and their destructive “all about me” attitude was spot on. Maybe the baby boomers can stop living beyond their means and retire to open the work force to younger Americans struggling to find work.
January 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm, Anonymous said:
“… our constitution that is based upon individual personal liberties…” – Yes it is. And it guarantees “life and liberty” to all. The core question is whether the “individual” is part of that “all” whether he/she has been born or not yet born. What is an “individual”? Does an unborn child have “freedom of choice” to live or die? Seems like some dictator/executioner is making that decision. Some choice.
January 20, 2012 at 10:48 am, DANH said:
I really wish I could give this artical 1000 thumbs down..Andrew were dropped on your head falling out of your mothers womb? I hope you know that this type of Bias reporting from you losers in the MSM adds a whole bunch of fuel to this fire..and the internet is ALIVE and WELL with the up coming Ron Paul REVOLUTION..Hell Im laid off and I have given till it hurts for this man and his message..bumper stickers/pins/bracelets/Copper Coins/T-shirt/Cookbook/Pamphlets and Im saving up my pennies for the Hooded Sweat shirt + I gave to 3 or 4 Money Bombs!! I because of you and your MSM Bias Pig reporting have made me do this for this Honest Man. I hope and pray that the next person who reads this post will Donate to the cause..RON PAULS REVOLUTION…BRING US BACK OUR CONSTITUTION! GIVE TILL IT HURTS AMERICA..its now or never.
January 20, 2012 at 10:54 am, JC said:
Paul’s statement that the law catches up with changes in morality is startling and scary. What makes it scary is how true it is. What current taboos may our society decide are acceptable in the next 25, 50 or 100 years?
We have less of a defense against these startling shifts when only 445 people (congress, 9 justices and a president) can control the legislation. We must return these rights to the states.
January 20, 2012 at 11:27 am, Clyde Macc said:
Return it to the States. Ron Paul.
January 20, 2012 at 11:36 am, Anonymous said:
This is a thinly-veiled propaganda piece masquerading as an editorial that’s trying to pass itself off as a news article. It fails on all levels.
Stop exposing yourself as the amateur you are, Belonsky.
January 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Anonymous said:
Despite the poorly reasoned and purposely misleading/inflammatory tone of this article – there IS a legitimate concern among Ron Paul supporters who are pro-choice.
Pro-choice Paul supporters generally rank truly important issues like the economy, foreign policy, and the stripping of civil liberties WAY above the wedge abortion issue.
However, it does make them cringe a little to hear him talk about the overturn of Roe v Wade. That little cringe is not enough to override the higher priority issues – where Paul is by far the only viable option.
So to all you pro-choice Ron Paul supporters… remember the statistic quoted in the above article (it’s easy to find elsewhere too): 56%-60% of Americans think abortion should be legal. With a strong majority of Americans in favor of abortion legality – what are the realistic chances that any State could actually get enough support to make it illegal? If even Mississippi can’t pass a “personhood” measure – what are the odds that ANY state can?
January 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm, Jake said:
Dr. Paul is completely entitled to his opinion about abortion. However, he is not entiteld to deny women the right to choose whether to go through with a pregnancy, nor is anyone else.
January 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Anonymous said:
Despite the poorly reasoned and purposely misleading/inflammatory tone of this article – there IS a legitimate concern among Ron Paul supporters who are pro-choice.
Pro-choice Paul supporters generally rank truly important issues like the economy, foreign policy, and the stripping of civil liberties WAY above the wedge abortion issue.
However, it does make them cringe a little to hear him talk about the overturn of Roe v Wade. That little cringe is not enough to override the higher priority issues – where Paul is by far the only viable option.
So to all you pro-choice Ron Paul supporters… remember the statistic quoted in the above article (it’s easy to find elsewhere too): 56%-60% of Americans think abortion should be legal. With a strong majority of Americans in favor of abortion legality – what are the realistic chances that any State could actually get enough support to make it illegal? If even Mississippi can’t pass a “personhood” measure – what are the odds that ANY state can?
January 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Anonymous said:
When you are citing the Daily Beast as authority you have already lost the argument. Dr. Paul thinks that abortion should not be a Federal issue and should be handled by the States. Of course since Roe v. Wade there are entire industries that employ thousands of people to keep that fight going and their paychecks going.
Abortion should not be a Federal issue and it has gone down hill ever since Roe v. Wade and the Federal Government now trying to stick its nose into every issue.
Return the issue to the States and let citizens decide on the local level how they want to run their State, the Federal government can butt out.
January 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Anonymous said:
When you are citing the Daily Beast as authority you have already lost the argument. Dr. Paul thinks that abortion should not be a Federal issue and should be handled by the States. Of course since Roe v. Wade there are entire industries that employ thousands of people to keep that fight going and their paychecks going.
Abortion should not be a Federal issue and it has gone down hill ever since Roe v. Wade and the Federal Government now trying to stick its nose into every issue.
Return the issue to the States and let citizens decide on the local level how they want to run their State, the Federal government can butt out.
January 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm, Halyna said:
Ron Paul’s assertion that law follows moral beliefs appears to have been true in the former USSR, i.e., in 1917 the Communists overthrew the monarchy, also beginning persecution of Christian and other religions, in 1918 the last Russian czar and his family were murdered, the churches meanwhile were being destroyed… In 1920, Russia became the first country in the world to allow abortion in ALL circumstances!
Didn’t take them long, did it?
source:Wikipedia
January 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm, Halyna said:
Ron Paul’s assertion that law follows moral beliefs appears to have been true in the former USSR, i.e., in 1917 the Communists overthrew the monarchy, also beginning persecution of Christian and other religions, in 1918 the last Russian czar and his family were murdered, the churches meanwhile were being destroyed… In 1920, Russia became the first country in the world to allow abortion in ALL circumstances!
Didn’t take them long, did it?
source:Wikipedia
January 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm, Anthony said:
Even though I think I differ with the politics of the above author and I am pro-life, his analysis is right on target. And I think Ron Paul’s has a much better handle on the whole issue and a strategy for making real progress than Santorum–basically work from the bottom up and build consensus. Santorum I think is simply trying to score political brownie points with establishment social conservatives as opposed to having a viable political strategy to make progress on this issue. Santorum also is pretty willing disregard basic constitutional principals simply to make himself Mr. Pro-life but that attitude is really going to backfire because the issue rests on respect for principals and you do need a supporting grassroots political and popular consensus to protect the unborn–laws alone at the national level won’t work.
January 20, 2012 at 12:25 pm, James Anthony said:
I’ve been a liberal Democrat since I worked for the McGovern campaign vs. Nixon in 1972. I’m voting for Ron Paul. And as much as I’d like to slam the pornography and drugs component – I cannot – because yes, the steady diet
and exposure to those two elements opened up experimentation with sex to the
degree that promiscuity became rampant and subsequently created a tidal wave of unwanted pregnancies. Nobody, other than the author of this article who is shamelessly defensive against Ron Paul, would suggest that every unwanted pregnancy was a result of deviant behavior. All of media and pop culture’s rapid transition from controlled standards and practices in 1964 to a free for all by 1968 that descended on the entire country was reflected in our collective conduct. So Dr. Paul is correct in his interpretation. HE should know he delivered over 3000 babies.
January 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm, Jake said:
Unwanted pregnancies and abortion are as old as the human race. They just came out of the shadows more.
January 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm, apachefreedom said:
I abhor ad hominem attacks. But I honestly can’t be bothered to address and refute your column point by point, so I will be intellectually lazy. sir, ….you’re a MORON
January 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm, Anonymous said:
Just gotta throw this out. I don’t give a single s(#t about abortion. I think its one of the issues that is the furthest from what we need to be focusing on.
I don’t mind Paul’s position because I think he has legs to stand on from his career of delivering babies. No matter what he says, I feel as though he is more authentic in this category than his rivals, but I genuinely just don’t care. I tend to believe that Darwinism should be more of a part of our reality than it is, and thus if someone wants to take their genes out of the gene pool, more power to them. I wish it was stupid people who were doing this more often, but that’s the unfortunate side of abortion. The people who tend to have more abortions are the more affluent who do it out of convenience. This is sad, but why am I talking about this?
Anyway, get over abortion. If our country doesn’t get its finances together on the quick, then people will be performing coat hanger abortions again; not because abortions are illegal, but because our currency will fail. Currency destruction is the single most challenging problem facing America today, and everyone but Paul seems to think they can just gloss over the issue entirely.
I am disgusted with people over the age of 45. Has your drug ridden past sucked your ability to research away from you? The younger generation gets it, but the baby boom and above generation is apparently unable to peel themselves away from the Fox News / CNN bull that seems to be their only source of information.
For goods sake, research, and see why the real reason we need a Ron Paul is that our money is being destroyed. None of your other problems with him, including the whole “foreign policy” issue will matter one bit if our economy dies the death it inevitably will if someone like Paul doesn’t get in.
January 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm, Sarah Michele Graves said:
i was going to comment about the shotty writing but im glad to see that everyone else got here first. back to community college journalism you go.
January 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm, apachefreedom said:
YOU KNOW WHAT FRICKIN ROCKS. EVERY TIME A MINDLESS HIT PIECE IS WRITTEN ON DR. PAUL THERE IS AN ARMY OF PEOPLE READY TO DEFEND HIM ONLINE AND EVISCERATE THE CONTENTS FOR WHAT IT IS! THE COMMENTS SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE GIVE ME SUCH HOPE THAT THIS COUNTRY CAN BE SAVED.
January 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm, Anonymous said:
A great sentiment. Looks like you keyboard CAPS key is locked. That is a shame. Makes all your writing look like you are SHOUTING AT PEOPLE which most people do not like. New keyboards can be bought very cheaply. Try Best Buy and get one for $7.99.
January 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm, Anonymous said:
Aborting this article would have been a good idea. But do we need a Federal law to do that? Or should the Federal Government have no right to say either way whether this writing should live or die?
January 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm, Joshua Hart said:
I must agree with Rocknrollsage, You must be a complete moron for writing his exact quote down and then lambasting Dr. Paul for saying that drugs and porn is at blame for the abortion increases. The MORALITY is the issue, it’s they way we think. Please either stop writing BS and misleading people with your garbage. And start helping them figure out who really is going to change this country for the better…RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!
January 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm, crunk wire said:
“Abortion rights activists” — what right do you have to slaughter a foetus?
I want a society based on personality responsibility. I’m pro-choice — and in cases where the woman consented to a sex act, she consented to create a life. That was her choice. What right does she have to snatch that right away? The other choice is to not consent to unprotected sex in the first place.
(Disclaimer: In cases of rape, incest and medical danger, abortion of course should be legal.)
January 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm, Anthony said:
A good, concise argument. I would add that the
“abortion rights” people often tacitly acknowledge the foetus as an unborn child having some sort of right to life. For instance, Bill Clinton was famously quoted as saying abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” ”Rare” in this context means these babies being aborted have a right to life, but here Clinton sees “abortion rights” as the dominant concern, where you, I, and Dr. Paul would disagree and say the right to life of the unborn child is the dominant concern.
January 20, 2012 at 5:57 pm, Anonymous said:
Actually, the woman did not “create” a life.
January 23, 2012 at 2:49 pm, Jeffery said:
In the case of Rape or incest, the person who should die is the rapist or the person committing incest. Why should we kill an innocent child for the acts of the vile father?
January 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm, Wayne Wilson said:
why does this author insist on attacking Paul’s argument for why unwanted pregnancy increased in the 70′s? Anyone can tell you it’s the result of the ‘sexual revolution’ and increased promiscuity and multiple partners and decrease in marriage at a young age. That’s obvious, I’m not even taking a side on the issue. Liberals are right in that they are concerned about government regulation of their bodies, but not correct in that they pretend loose, irresponsible sex is a God-given right that nobody should even question in terms of morality. Sex has consequence, whether it’s pregnancy or STDs or something else, you can’t just ignore those consequences and blame people for trying to deal with the even uglier consequences of those thoughtless sex acts (abortion).
January 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm, Jed Zeppelin said:
One’s ideology used to be kept separate from his/her journalistic approach. Now we have Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. You know what you’re gonna hear before you hear it. News with a slant is propaganda, which is exactly what this hitpiece is.
January 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm, Shark Man said:
Abortion is such a WEDGE ISSUE. Our country is in serious trouble! Wish we could try and resolve some of our problems and not spend so much time on talking points and personal attacks.
15/16 trillion dollars in debt and were about to bailout Europe…
Wake up people.
January 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm, Shark Man said:
Abortion is such a WEDGE ISSUE. Our country is in serious trouble! Wish we could try and resolve some of our problems and not spend so much time on talking points and personal attacks.
15/16 trillion dollars in debt and were about to bailout Europe…
Wake up people.
January 20, 2012 at 3:22 pm, Andrew said:
I agree with Rocknrollsage Dr. Paul didn’t imply drugs and porn made women pregnant. I personally don’t agree with abortion, but despite how i may feel people will always feel differently than me, and it should always be left up to the state and not federal law, not everyone can be happy, but we can compromise
January 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm, 432 said:
VOTE RON PAUL
January 20, 2012 at 4:39 pm, JJ said:
I hope American citizens wake up and understand that Paul is the only one
fighting for our freedom, rights, and SOUND money! How he was first in line
against the NDAA, SOPA, and PIPA atrocities. How he isn’t for sale to lobbyists, special interest corporations, private bankers, and wallstreeters, the same people Dr. Paul is fighting against! I hope they realize that he is the only candidate with any military experience, medical experience, AND economics experience. I hope they realize that despite lame stream media’s poor attempt at an attack, he is NOT an isolationist, rather a non-interventionist, two completely different stances. I hope that American citizens aquire the determination to go out and research for themselves about who they should vote for instead of listening to main stream media and having it think for them. This country needs a man who has a 100% Constitutional voting record, you know that document that this country was founded upon and that EVERY politician was sworn to defend and protect? This country would be in a lot better of a place. Ron Paul 2012!
January 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm, Christopher Kuhn said:
Your lack of Integrity and Ethics astound me.
January 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm, Randolph said:
Yeah, I have to agree with the others on the way you’re jumping to conclusions on his abortion rhetoric. We have to look at the big picture on each candidates’ stand – AND their track record.
Yes, Ron Paul hurts some people’s feelings because of his conservative stance on certain subjects, but, overall, he’s still more interested in working for and protecting the American Republic rather than special interests of multinational corporations. Paul would sooner protect the health and well being of American Citizens.
Belongsky, you need to question Paul yourself on how he would help a rape victim and get actual answers or else you’re just wrongsky.
January 20, 2012 at 7:04 pm, Tron said:
I think the Paulbots miss the point, “abortion became prevalent”, was he living under a rock prior to the 60s?
I know he has afterwards, but before too?
Guy makes a very dumb statement and everyone tries to illogically apply it to resolve the paradox.
Typical blind supporters.
(NO I AM NOT A NEOCON)
January 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm, rONpAULrEVOLution!!!! said:
HAHAHAAAAA!!!! You don’t have any support from your readers Mr. “journalist”. It seems everyone who commented below recognizes you for a QUACK!! It’s a shame money was wasted on your education to write this garbage. Your future in journalism is bleak at best.
January 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm, Joel Nye said:
This is definitely a states rights issue. The founding fathers understood that it would be very difficult to govern about controversial issues from a central government. With all of the different cultures, religions, etc. coming to America at the time, I think they knew this was the only way to keep a “Republic”, governed by the “people” through their representatives in their respective cultures (states). IMHO
January 20, 2012 at 11:52 pm, Abc said:
You lost your journalistic integrity and objectivity when you took a side on his morality comment that laws follow the morality of the citizens.
The reason for you siding in this way is because you feel you are moral and you clearly are pro-abortion.
This is always what happens when people’s morality has been eroded in an area and no longer fits with the rest of their personal moral structure; internally you have a conflict in this area and in order to resolve this conflict you overlook it. Thus for you pro-abortion is moral. In essence your virtue of freedom overrides your virtue of the life. However if you can chose to override life at its earliest most vulnerable stages in the sake of freedom, why not in other times? Indeed a criminal on the run by this measuring stick should be free to kill those attempting his capture. (Slippery slope argument)
Either way you missed the point: the morals chosen by the people are ingrained into the law, whichever virtues they choose to champion.
This is why you are overly sensitive on this issue, and lose your objectivity. Perhaps next time check your baggage at the door.
January 21, 2012 at 2:37 am, Rjk said:
Its unfortunate that Ron Paul most probably won’t be the republican candidate. If he is I’m planning to vote for him as our next president. I’m a democrat and voted for Obama last election. Obama has been such a disappointment, chipping away at everything that make america great. I might not agree with all Ron Paul’s policies but I respect him and he has a clear track record. Mostly, I know he will fight for our rights and civil liberties. I hope republicans elect him as their presidential candidate. He is an honest, decent, person who has the utmost respect for the Constitution than any of the other candidates or the present president.
January 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm, Vet4RonPaul said:
Ron Paul vs The ChickenHawk Warmongers
Let us reflect that you can’t be both for unjust wars (eg. Iran, Iraq, etc.) and pro-life at the same time. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich cannot possibly be pro-life while at the same time urging on more violence against innocent people, especially our own American youth! Only Ron Paul is pro-life and anti-war. He’s also the only one that actually served in the military. Romney, Santorum, Gingrich are cowards.
January 21, 2012 at 8:54 pm, American said:
I only have one vote to give, and damnit, I’m giving it to RON PAUL!
February 09, 2012 at 6:14 pm, Merlene Deveyra said:
I admit: I have already been won-over to the fiscal doom-and-gloomers regarding the marketplace. Has anybody found a glimmer of hope in this “down-turn”?
February 09, 2012 at 7:19 pm, Virgil Gretz said:
That is the type of info that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for now not positioning this higher up! Come on over and discuss with my web site. Thanks =)
February 10, 2012 at 7:22 am, Elena Weiker said:
An interesting discussion is worth comment. I think that you should write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheers
February 12, 2012 at 2:54 am, Lesley Sutt said:
I understand what you suggest in regards to the current economic climate. The rising cost of living is detrimental and we also figure it’s going to intensify. sigh.
February 12, 2012 at 6:41 am, Rosa Kemppainen said:
I simply needed to thank you so much all over again. I do not know the things that I might have gone through in the absence of the secrets discussed by you concerning such problem. It seemed to be a real fearsome concern in my position, however , taking a look at a expert strategy you resolved the issue made me to weep for contentment. I will be thankful for the work and in addition have high hopes you are aware of a powerful job you are always providing teaching some other people using your webblog. Most likely you’ve never encountered all of us.
February 12, 2012 at 6:43 am, Renay Henerson said:
If you listen to half these call-in shows, most are constantly pushing gold and silver as being a temporary measure to the turmoil. But, my personal past experience has been that the salesmen hardly ever quit dialing and annoying you,plus the marginis actually awful unless you try out a neighborhood coin store.
April 12, 2012 at 7:22 am, sample resume said:
There are certainly a number of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a nice level to bring up. I supply the thoughts above as basic inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you convey up where an important thing will be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged round issues like that, but I am positive that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Each girls and boys really feel the impression of just a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.
April 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm, how to plan a project said:
Spot on with this write-up, I truly assume this web site needs far more consideration. I’ll in all probability be again to learn way more, thanks for that info.
May 23, 2012 at 5:55 am, Cleaning Service Kings said:
I found your blog site on google and check a couple of of your early posts. Proceed to keep up the superb operate. I just further up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking ahead to reading more from you in a while!…